To protect retail you also have to make it easy for people to use it.

A great idea to do that is to make street parking outside retail areas 30 minutes only. This will enable someone to do some shopping, but not to eat or have a business meeting.

A quick stop to get something is often chosen by the availability of being able to park nearby for a short time. 30 minute parking spots will help.

Good try but the horse got of of the barn several years ago, when all of the current wringing of hands and debate should have gone on. Face it, it's over. The type of retail we had will never come back. And, oh how happy I am to live in my weed covered under treed neighborhood. I can walk to Meissner's or Dave's to pick up my car after it's been serviced or repaired. And there are clusters of gas stations nearby. Bring your cars down here if you dare to cross Oregon Expressway. And if you do, let me know, you're invited to drop by for a cup of coffee at my house.

Of course property owners went for offices just for the reason pointed out. Retail can't compete unless you introduce rent control and I know that will never happen. I don't have a clue and I suspect CC members don't either of what the books of a small retailer look like. I don't know what inducement could be made to bring them back. So, maybe we'll just have to look at empty storefronts for a while.

Too little, too late. Shady Lane and others are gone. No parking. A parking ticket on Christmas Eve at 3 pm when no one is downtown and when SOME people get to park ANYWHERE with no ticket whenever they please. We ALL know the usual offenders. I have NO reason to patronize downtown Palo Alto anymore.

Auto service places aren't protected? I've been going to Mike at Independent Bimmer on Alma for decades. He's fair, honest and reasonable. And I'll be crushed if his place gets eaten up by offices.

I've already lost Harold's Auto Upholstery on Fabian because he's been forced out by Google. When I called, Brad (the owner) told me about how he's waiting to reopen someplace in Santa Clara but since it's so hard to get to he'd come and pick my car up for me and give me a loaner until he could bring my car back!

These are the kinds of service businesses we desparately need to protect.

The retail that I think is needed is large supermarkets. They seem to be forbidden in Palo Alto because people might use them and thus cause local traffic problems. Instead we have small, mostly very expensive 'super'markets and many people drive longer distances to Mountain View and Menlo Park.

During last night's debate Council member Liz Kniss, always a supporter of developers both during her previous council stint for 8 years and during these last two years on the council again, tried to persuade her council colleagues to cut a deal to and provide a loophole for property owners who want to convert retail to offices. Her position was that if a retail space was unrented for a year the property owner could claim hardship and be allowed to convert the retail space to offices.

During at least one, if not two economic downtowns, the council allowed property owners with empty retail spaces to "temporarily" convert the spaces to offices for two to three years until the economy rebounded. At which point the space was supposed to revert back to retail. As far as I know the then planning director(s) just let this slide and I'm willing to bet those "temporary" offices are still occupying the retail space.

At the time I found it hard to believe that if retail rents responded to market forces tenants couldn’t be found who would want to be located in Palo Alto. Or the rent renegotiated with the current tenants instead of pushing them out. But unfortunately it appeared that the council at the time provided an incentive to keep retail spaces empty for six months or a year and then be rewarded with what amounted to permanent conversion to offices.

This old loophole appears to be just what council member Liz Kniss advocated for last night.

I agree. Some people get to park wherever they want.

For example, backwards, in a red zone, under no parking sign while they are getting gyros.

Web Link

@enough!
I'm not understanding what all the references you make about 'Some' people who get to park 'Anywhere' are all about. Can you clarify and identify those people and places and what it's all about.

Thanks.

@Jane
I"m kinda getting into battle mode again. It get's my adrenaline going, but my powder is wet (a liberal trick I'm sure) so I'll never get to get a shot off. Dang! Yes, a lot of us know about Kniss's past voting record but in the end she will probably get her way again, and she knows it. She's a veteran, not a newbie. Just let storefronts go empty for some period of time and then the devolopers/owners will move back in and turn it back into offices. That's the way it works in my old town, lost in memory, and never to return.

Okay, enough of my babbling for today.

I am confuses, auto repair shops, restaurants, laundromats are considered retail???? I have lived in Palo Alto for 20+ years and in that time I have done little to no shopping in Palo Alto . Why? Because there is very few places in Palo Alto toshop for what most people need. And when you try to bring needed retail into the city, it will be shot down by the usual suspects who will complain about too much noise, too much traffic etc.
Also, I find it quite hypocritical of the council to be writing their hands over lost retail when they let an entire shopping plaza to be wiped out!!! Typical clueless leadership from our council.

@Sparty - you should have thanked them for the courtesy of not taking a valuable parking spot.

>you should have thanked them for the courtesy of not taking a valuable parking spot.

and for blocking a driveway. If we blocked all the driveways, fewer people would drive.

This is not rocket science.
Retail has been hurt by high rents.
The rents are high because of the high rents offices generate.
Therefore we make the ground floor retail only and offices upstairs.
The owners then realize that they will have empty space unless they lower the rents on the ground floor.
Then the retailers may be able to return.

Good to see the Council focusing on "public health, safety, and welfare",
"neighborhood quality of life", increasing "traffic congestion". The right
values, the right framework for policy and decision-making. It's very late-
but this is a good start on a long road back.

@jim

And I'm sure if the end result is a bunch of empty storefronts downtown, you'll place the blame on those pushing for and enacting these protections, and not on those GREEDY LANDLORDS.

This "urgent" law smells.

Oh, no one mentions this honest words - Rent Control. That's how is done.

@resident - rent control for businesses? Talk about corporate welfare. bleh. You want to be subsidizing Starbucks, Cheesecake Factory, American Apparel, Vans, Keen??

@Agenda
" I find it quite hypocritical of the council to be wringing their hands over lost retail when they let an entire shopping plaza to be wiped out!!! Typical clueless leadership from our council."

It's past council members who are long gone and not wringing their hands who many of us believe steered the city in a direction that was detrimental to our quality of life. However, after the elections last fall we finally have a majority of council members who are willing to stand up and if not undo at least slow down the forces that have done so much to change the character of Palo Alto.

As for Liz Kniss, if you watch her at council meetings she appears to be quite ticked off and mostly at odds with the new council majority. Although she can generally count on Marc Berman, Greg Scharff, and her protege Cory Wolbach, to vote with her. But the interests they tend to represent no longer have the council majority.

Unfortunately the previous council majority stacked the powerful and influential Planning and Transport Commission with like minded members who represent the same interests. They have hijacked the draft for the new Comprehensive Plan that will set Palo Alto's direction until 2030.

This is a step in the right direction, but it seems there are two rather large holes.

It appears that the law does not address converting first floor offices back to retail, say when the current office tenant moves out.

Also, it is not clear how this will be enforced. Is there to be a fine or some other penalty imposed on the landlord and/or office tenant?

Hopefully this will not be just another Palo Alto "feel good" ordinance.